CORAM
I. L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Dissented)
M. E. OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. A. KALGO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. O. EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. I. KASTINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
N. TOBI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
BASHIR MOHAMMED DALHATU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 4th Respondent was scheduled to hold its primary election on the 3rd day of January, 2003 for the nomination of its candidate for the gubernatorial election. A primary election was held in Kano State by a committee comprising of the party members in which only the Appellant took part and consequently won. Meanwhile, another primary election was conducted in Dutse, Jigawa State in which the 1st Respondent participated and won. It was the result of the primary election held in Dutse, Jigawa State that was released by the chairman of the election committee and the 4th Respondent recognized same and announced the 1st Respondent as the winner of the primary election. The Appellant was consequently displeased by the result and he filed an action against the Respondents at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja claiming that the return of the 1st Respondent was unconstitutional and as such be declared void, and also sought for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 4th Respondent from recognizing the result of the primary election held in Dutse, Jigawa State. The Respondents filed a preliminary objection on the grounds that the matter was a domestic affair of the political party, and that on the authority of the case of Onuoha v. Okafor & Ors (1983) 14 NSCC 494, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The trial court dismissed the preliminary objection thereby departing from the principle laid down in the case of Onuoha v. Okafor & ors , and called upon the Supreme Court to “re-amend its position on the internal affairs of political parties.” The Respondents thereby appealed against the dismissal of their preliminary objection and applied for a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal. The stay was refused by the trial court which decided the matter in favour of the Appellant. The Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal where the decision of the trial court was upturned and has thus led to the instant appeal to the Supreme Court by the Appellant.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Onuoha v. Okafor & Ors (1983) 2 SCNLR 244; (1983) 14 NSCC 494 a court of law can validly assume jurisdiction in a case to elect or select a candidate for a political party in its internal affair or nominate him for sponsorship in an election.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT – THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT PRESUPPOSES THAT LOWER COURTS MUST STRICTLY ADHERE TO THE DECISIONS OF HIGHER COURTS EVEN WHERE THE DECISION WAS REACHED PER INCURIAM.
“The doctrine of judicial precedent otherwise known as stare decisis is not alien to our jurisprudence. It is a well settled principle of judicial policy which must be strictly adhered to by all lower courts. While such lower courts may depart from their own decisions reached per incuriam, they cannot refuse to be bound by decisions of higher courts even if those decisions were reached per incuriam. The implication is that a lower court is bound by the decision of a higher court even where that decision was given erroneously: see Emerah& Sons Ltd. v. Attorney-General Plateau State &Ors (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 147) 788; Global Trans Oceanico S.A. v. Free Ent. (Nig.)Ltd. (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 706) 426 at 441.” PER D. O. EDOZIE, JSC.
JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY – WHETHER THE HIGH COURT OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY.
“The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory ought to be circumspect before deciding whether or not it is wise and correct to exercise jurisdiction in matters outside the territory of the Federal Capital Territory. Their court, unlike the Federal High Court has jurisdiction only in matters arising out of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja.” PER M. E. OGUNDARE, JSC.
SUPREME COURT – THE SUPREME COURT CAN ONLY OVERRULE ITSELF FOR GOOD AND SUBSTANTIAL REASONS.
“It is well-settled that the Supreme Court can only change its position in a case decided earlier by it where it considers, for good and substantial reasons, to overrule itself on an application where the need arises. Williams v. Daily Times (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) 1; Rossek v. ACB Ltd. (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382; Johnson v. Lawanson (1971) All NLR 56.” PER U. A. KALGO, JSC.
JURISDICTION – THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS LIMITED TO DECLARATION OF THE WINNER OF AN ELECTION AND DOES NOT INCLUDE NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE IN PRIMARIES.
“While a court of law has the jurisdiction to declare a particular candidate as the winner of an election, a court of law cannot be involved in the domestic affair of nomination of a candidate or candidates in primaries.” PER N. TOBI, JSC.
JURISDICTION OF A STATE – THE CONSTITUTION HAS MADE EACH STATE INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHER AND THUS JURISDICTION OF A STATE IS LIMITED TO MATTERS ARISING FROM ITS TERRITORY.
“By our Constitution, each State of the Federation is independent of the other and the jurisdiction of each State is limited to matters arising in its territory.” PER A. O. EJIWUNMI, JSC.
STARE DECISIS – THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS IS TO ENSURE CERTAINTY OF THE LAW.
“The doctrine of stare decisis is fully entrenched in our jurisprudence to ensure certainty of the law.” PER M. E. OGUNDARE, JSC.
NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF CANDIDATE IN AN ELECTION – THE ISSUE OF NOMINATION AND SPONSORSHIP OF CANDIDATE IN A POLITICAL PARTY IS A DOMESTIC ISSUE OF THE POLITICAL PARTY AND THUS NOT JUSTICIABLE IN A LAW COURT.
“The issue of who should be a candidate of a given political party at any election is clearly a political one to be determined by the rules and constitution of the said party. In other words, it is a domestic issue and not such as would be justiciable in a court of law. This is so because the power and the right to nominate and sponsor a candidate to an election are vested in a political party and the exercise of this right is the domestic affair of the party.” PER A. I KATSINA-ALU, JSC.
JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF A COURT IS BASED ON CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND CANNOT BE ASSUMED BY THE COURT.
“Courts ought to bear in mind that jurisdiction is not to be assumed, but must be based on the constitutional provisions that established the court.” PER A. O. EJIWUNMI, JSC.
JURISDICTION OF A COURT – IT IS THE STATUTE CREATING A COURT THAT VESTS JURISDICTION IN THE COURT AND NOT THE RULES OF COURT.
“The rules of court do not vest jurisdiction in court. Rather it is the statute that created the court that also makes the necessary provision for the jurisdiction of the court.” PER A. O. EJIWUNMI, JSC.
JURISDICTION OF STATES IN THE FEDERATION – THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT OF A STATE IS LIMITED TO MATTERS ARISING WITHIN THE STATE, AND EACH STATE IS DISTINCT FROM THE OTHER.
“For the purpose of exercising jurisdiction each State of the Federation is independent of the other and the jurisdiction of its court is limited to matters arising in its territory”. PER M. E. OGUNDARE, JSC.
NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE – NOMINATION OF A CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION IS SOLELY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE POLITICAL PARTY.
“Nomination or sponsorship of a candidate for election is a political matter solely within the discretion of the party.” PER N. TOBI, JSC.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT – THE REFUSAL BY A LOWER COURT TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF A HIGHER COURT IS NOT JUSTIFIED EVEN IF THE REMEDY OF A CANDIDATE WHOSE SPONSORSHIP FOR AN ELECTION IS NOT REDRESSIBLE BY A LAW COURT
“Even if the remedy of a candidate whose sponsorship for an election was withdrawn is not redressible in a court of law, that is no justification for the refusal of a lower court to follow the decision of a higher court.” PER D. O. EDOZIE, JSC.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1991